|
Robert
Faurisson
June 5, 2008
The energy crisis is
causing worry. However, Iran,
which possesses huge reserves of
oil and gas, wishes to exploit
them better, with our help, and
sell us the products, a procedure
that would lead to a marked
softening of worldwide petrol,
diesel, fuel oil and gas prices.
A good many nations have an eye
on this great potential wealth
and would be apt to respond
favourably to Tehran’s
business proposals. But the
United States has decreed the
boycott of Iran and, up to now,
the world’s policeman has
generally been obeyed. President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can make all
the proposals he likes: he still
finds himself considered a
criminal. His request for a
collaboration that would let him
fully re-equip the country’s
drilling, production and
processing operations is refused.
He goes so far as to suggest that
countries using the single
European currency pay in euros
and no longer in dollars, but to
no avail. People turn their back
to him. Some threaten him. Even
the Pope refuses to receive him.
In many countries, his embassies
and diplomatic staff are deprived
of contact with the local
authorities and foreign
delegations; they have ended up
with pariah status. One may well
ask oneself where such radical
behaviour towards the Iranians
ever originated and why the
international community acts so
obviously against its own
economic interests.
Three grounds are usually
brought up to explain this policy
of boycott and open hostility: 1)
the Iranian president is perhaps
trying to arm his country with
nuclear weapons; 2) it seems
he wants to exterminate the Jews
in Israel; 3) he holds the
extermination of the European
Jews during the Second World War
to be a myth. The first two
grounds do not make much sense;
only the third is serious and,
for that reason,
instructive.
In reply to the first
ground, it’s fitting to
observe that if
Ahmadinejad’s accusers
possessed the slightest evidence
that Iran was trying to acquire
nuclear weapons, such evidence
would long since have been
brandished before the world;
however, up to now, they have
supplied no real evidence and, in
any case, if Iran had a nuclear
bomb at her disposal, she could
not launch it towards a
geographic zone populated by as
many Palestinians as Jews; her
bomb would kill or maim both
populations without distinction.
The second ground rests on the absurd
manipulation of a text. Ahmadinejad has
had and continues to have ascribed to
him an incendiary statement according to
which the Jewish State is to be “wiped
off the map”, words taken to mean the
extermination of the Jews in Israel.
Actually, he’d merely repeated in 2006
Ayatollah Khomeyni’s 1979 declaration
that “the regime [in Persian, “rezhime”]
occupying Al Qods
[Jerusalem]” would
one day “vanish from the
page of time”. Ahmadinejad
took care to spell out his phrase
by specifying that, if all the
inhabitants of the land of
Palestine – Moslems, Jews
and Christians – had the
right one day to vote freely and
opt for a regime of their choice,
the Zionist regime would
disappear from Palestine just as,
for example, the Communist regime
disappeared from Russia. The
Western media, as a whole, have
reported neither the exact
wording nor the
explanation.
The third ground is the
true one: if the Iranian
president causes so much fear,
it’s owing to his
revisionism. He has wielded the
sole weapon that can deeply worry
the Jewish State and its ally,
the United States. He possesses
what I’ve called the poor
man’s atomic weapon. In the
findings of historical
revisionism he effectively holds
a “device of mass
destruction” that would
kill no-one but could neutralise
Israel’s number one
political weapon: reat
Lie of the alleged Nazi gas
chambers and the alleged genocide
of Europe’s Jews. Raised
in the religion of the
“Holocaust”, the
peoples of North America and
Europe generally believe in this
Great Lie and see Ahmadinejad as
a heretic; thus they dare not
defend any policy of
rapprochement with Iran, or call
for a lifting of the boycott,
although therein lies the only
chance of seeing their energy
costs decrease. Doubtless some of
these peoples’ leaders
desire an understanding with
Iran, but they back away at the
prospect of being criticised as
accomplices of the new Satan, of
the “denier”, the
“negationist” who
“kills the Jews once again
by denying their
death”.
The news of the
international
“Holocaust” conference
in Tehran (December
11th - 12th
2006) rang out like a warning
shot. By no means reserved to
revisionists, that conference was
open to all. Confrontation of
opposing views was allowed, and
it took place. The rout of the
antirevisionists was dramatic.
And President Ahmadinejad,
already fully apprised of
revisionist argumentation, was
thus able to restate that the
“Holocaust” was a
myth. Bush, Blair, Chirac, who
know nothing of revisionism,
responded by making a terrible
fuss. As for the Israelis, they
are aware of the Jewish
authors’ utter inability to
answer revisionist arguments on
the scientific level; they now
uphold their Great Lie only with
Elie Wiesel-style fake testimony
or cinematic guff in the manner
of Claude Lanzmann, when they
don’t resort to novels,
drama or even sham museum
exhibitions like those at Yad
Vashem in Jerusalem or the
Holocaust Memorial Museum in
Washington; they have therefore
seized the occasion to draw up a
bill in the Knesset that would
let the State of Israel demand
that any revisionist, wherever in
the world he might be, be
delivered to its own courts! When
there’s no proof to show,
the cudgel is used.
The Zionists and their
friends are getting more and more
alarmed at the diffusion of
revisionism over the Internet.
They make many attempts, cynical
or veiled, to strengthen Internet
censorship but, up to today at
any rate, they have not yet
achieved their aims. Throughout
the Western world repression of
revisionism is
worsening, but it’s all
a waste of effort so far. The
holocaustic propaganda and Shoah
Business grow ever more
deafening, but henceforth
they tend to annoy or tire
people.
Revisionism has long been
an intellectual adventure,
experienced by a certain number
of academics, researchers and
various other persons ready to
sacrifice their lives or their
tranquillity for the defence of
historical truth, and of justice.
Today, revisionism is becoming,
on the international plane, a
noticeable bone of contention; it
is asserted by some and violently
denounced by others, and is
present even in certain political
or economic altercations. It is
destined to play no small role in
the endless crisis in the Middle
East as well as in the current
energy crisis. For the powerful,
it will constitute a threat and,
for others, a way out. In any
case, the times when revisionism
could be treated with contempt or
quite simply ignored are
decidedly past.
Robert
Faurisson
|
